Friday, December 29, 2006

Bush, "The Manchurian Candidate?"

As the Bush Administration prepares to release its latest strategy to turn tragedy into "triumph" in Iraq, all indications are that the lessons of Vietnam have been for naught.

The view that a "surge" in U.S. troops would lead to "victory" is strongly supported by individuals such as Sen. Lieberman, who has dual allegiances to Israel and the U.S. (in that order).

Given that right-wing Israelis and their U.S. "neoconservative" cohorts were instrumental in driving the U.S. into an unprovoked war, their continued influence can be felt as Cheney and Bush simply ignore the suggestions presented by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, as well as many other influential voices, both Democratic and Republican.

Not only are neoconservatives, such as Frank Gaffney, determined to continue destroying Iraq, but, as he stated on CNN yesterday, they are now convinced that the U.S. must also take on Iran militarily.

In short, the dream of neoconservatives and right-wing Israelis to restructure the Middle East in their image is alive and well. I suspect they won't be satisfied until the whole region goes up in flames, if that is what it takes for Israel's survival.

The fact that such a hawkish approach is most definitely NOT in the U.S.'s best interests (nor Israel's for that matter), seems to escape these arrogant, greedy individuals who are, rightly, universally despised.

The result of the implementation of their failed policies is the topic of an article by Robert Buzzanco, Professor of History at the University of Houston, who writes "Is Bush the Manchurian Candidate?" in which he describes the damage done by the Administration in vivid color:
If enemies of the United States had gotten together a few years ago to devise a plan to damage and undermine its global position-diminish its power and credibility, drag it into a stubborn war, harm its relations with allies, create international financial disarray, run up huge deificts, create political openings for the Europeans and China to exploit and become equals in global economic matters, motivate terrorists, bring the U. S. image in the Middle East to its nadir, restrict civil liberties at home, and so forth--they would have been hard-pressed to create a program that would be more effective than the Bush administration's policies on these issues of war, terrorism and global economics have.
Mr. Buzzanco proceeds to recall what could have been:
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the United States had the sympathy and respect of much of the world. The outpouring of goodwill was unprecedented in the post-Vietnam period, and the United States stood alone as a military and economic power. When Bush responded in the September attacks a month later with the invasion of Afghanistan, where al Qaeda leaders were hiding out, the world community and the U.S. populace supported him.

But beginning in mid-2002, when he returned to his obsession with Iraq, the worm began to turn. Using politicized intelligence and outright lies, the Bush administration, congress and the media all went along with the invasion of Iraq, beginning in March 2003. Consequently, in what we can not see was a remarkably short time, the amity and power accrued after 9/11 melted away.
Once support from the world community dissipated, the U.S. found itself "twisting slowly in the wind" with the sole support of Tony-the-Poodle and Sharon/Olmert.

The amazingly bad judgment of Cheney-Bush and their neoconservative cohorts will be remembered as one of the darkest moments in U.S. history. Warnings from friendly governments, both in Europe and the Middle East, were totally ignored as the Administration proceeded to implement the "Project for the New American Century," developed by neoconservatives and rejected by President Clinton.

Unfortunately, the Administration is seemingly determined to continue digging deeper and deeper a hole, which makes it all that much harder to climb out of in the end.


Post a Comment

<< Home